Features
Trump Raises Questions About Miriam Adelson’s Priorities and Sparks Debate Over Donor Influence on Politics
During a speech in the Knesset, Donald Trump unexpectedly pointed to the special role of Miriam Adelson in shaping U.S.–Israel relations. His remarks addressed not only the well-known philanthropist herself, but also a broader issue: how significant is the influence of private donors on a country’s foreign policy becoming? Society once again turns its attention to the boundaries of what is acceptable in the alliance between politics and big capital.
Who Is Miriam Adelson and Why She Receives So Much Attention
Dr. Miriam Adelson is a physician, scientist, and millionaire of Jewish origin, born in Israel and living in the United States for many years. She actively supports educational, medical, and cultural projects related to Jewish and Israeli identity, as well as programs aimed at combating drug addiction. Her foundation finances scholarships, memorials, and medical research.
Miriam Adelson is known for having continued her late husband’s political course after the death of Sheldon Adelson, a businessman and the founder of the casino company Las Vegas Sands, by maintaining strong support for the U.S. Republican Party. Over recent decades, the Adelson family has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to election campaigns, becoming one of the leading donors to the conservative wing of American politics. It is precisely the scale of her influence and her close contacts with the Trump administration that draw particular interest from experts and observers.
How Miriam and Sheldon Adelson Influenced U.S. Decisions on Israel
A series of cases is widely discussed in which funding from the Adelson family coincided with major political decisions made by the White House. Among the most prominent examples is the relocation of the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in 2018. According to reports by Reuters and The New York Times, this move was actively lobbied by Adelson and her circle, and the opening ceremony itself took place in the personal presence of the philanthropists.
In addition, Miriam Adelson has repeatedly been honored for her philanthropy and support of Israeli military organizations. In 2018, Trump awarded her the Presidential Medal of Freedom, one of the highest state honors in the United States. It is known that Adelson regularly visited the White House and maintained personal contact with the president on key issues.
The term “major donor” in this context refers to an individual or organization that contributes substantial sums to the campaigns of politicians or political parties. Lobbying is the activity of promoting the interests of private entities through lawful mechanisms of influence on those in power.
What Donald Trump Said and Why His Words Caused a Stir
During his speech, broadcast on Israeli and American channels, Trump stated: “Every president for decades said they would move the embassy to Jerusalem, but I got it done. Right, Miriam? Look, here’s Miriam—stand up, Miriam.”
Trump then spoke about how the Adelson couple frequently visited his office and actively participated in discussions on issues related to Israel. He added: “I once asked Miriam: which do you love more—Israel or the United States? She didn’t answer. Maybe it’s Israel.” These remarks became the subject of heated debate: can a donor with such priorities be considered capable of influencing U.S. foreign policy?
The context of the speech intensified the overall atmosphere—on the eve of the address, a temporary ceasefire regime between Israel and Hamas had been agreed upon, and Trump presented himself as a peacemaker. His jokes and rhetorical questions energized the audience, but also generated new suspicions regarding the transparency of the decisions being made.
Reaction of Public Organizations and Experts
Immediately after Trump’s speech, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a statement condemning such close ties between politicians and private donors. In a comment to Casino.org, CAIR representatives noted: “We welcome Trump’s candor in openly acknowledging the level of influence Miriam Adelson has on policy. We urge all U.S. politicians to refuse support from donors who place the interests of a foreign state above national ones.”
CAIR’s primary mission is to protect the interests of American Muslims and to combat discrimination and double standards. The council actively responds to any manifestations of interference in U.S. politics by foreign lobbyists. According to experts, such statements reflect growing public concern about the transparency of the political process.
The Debate Over Donor Influence and Possible Consequences
Public anxiety is increasing over whose hands hold the levers of control over foreign policy. Some experts argue that donations are a way of exercising civic engagement and supporting chosen politicians. Others see this as a threat to national interests and a risk of substituting public demand with private interests.
Where is the line between lawful support for a candidate and manipulation of foreign policy? What measures can prevent conflicts of interest between donors and state institutions? There are still no clear answers to these questions. Discussions of lobbying, donor ethics, and the influence of capital are becoming increasingly intense amid global challenges.
Similar mechanisms of influence also exist in less large-scale but no less illustrative forms, including in the gambling sector. In various countries, politicians and government officials often receive financial support from the gambling business, including casino owners and online platform operators. In return, such industries expect favorable regulation: license extensions, relaxed requirements, more lenient tax legislation, or delays in restrictive measures. Formally, such relationships fall within the bounds of the law, yet they increasingly become the subject of public debate about conflicts of interest and the transparency of decision-making.
Against this backdrop, it is hardly surprising that the gambling industry is developing not only in offline formats but also in the digital sphere, where state oversight is often weaker. Online casinos and live games attract audiences through mobility and ease of access, while the projects themselves quickly build up an ecosystem of apps and services. For example, through FunkyTimeGame.org Apps, users can download Funky Time applications and play in a live show format directly from a smartphone, without being tied to physical casinos or a specific location.
In a broader context, this once again brings the discussion back to the core issue: the influence of capital—whether from major political donors or the gambling industry—gradually permeates various spheres of public life. That is why questions of transparency, regulation, and public oversight are becoming increasingly relevant, regardless of whether the issue concerns foreign policy, domestic legislation, or the entertainment industry.
Context and Explanations for a Broad Audience
The Knesset is Israel’s parliament and the country’s highest legislative body. The relocation of the American embassy to Jerusalem was perceived as a historic victory for Israeli diplomacy; it signified the official recognition of the city as the capital. For the United States, this step became the subject of sharp criticism from other Middle Eastern countries as well as allies in the European Union.
World history has seen other instances in which major donors, such as George Soros or the Koch brothers, exerted notable influence on politics by financing campaigns, think tanks, or media outlets. The Adelson case only underscores that such practices have become universal, while questions of transparency remain unresolved.
Who determines strategic foreign policy decisions—presidents, parliaments, or shadow donors with their own preferences? Do parallels arise with other countries where political elites are closely intertwined with big capital? Behind the façade of philanthropy often lie complex mechanisms of influence that require public oversight and reflection.
During
a speech in the Knesset, Donald Trump unexpectedly pointed to the
special role of Miriam Adelson in shaping U.S.–Israel relations.
His remarks addressed not only the well-known philanthropist herself,
but also a broader issue: how significant is the influence of private
donors on a country’s foreign policy becoming? Society once again
turns its attention to the boundaries of what is acceptable in the
alliance between politics and big capital.Who Is Miriam Adelson and
Why She Receives So Much AttentionDr. Miriam Adelson is a
physician, scientist, and millionaire of Jewish origin, born in
Israel and living in the United States for many years. She actively
supports educational, medical, and cultural
projects related to Jewish and Israeli identity, as well as programs
aimed at combating drug addiction. Her foundation finances
scholarships, memorials, and medical research.Miriam Adelson is known for
having continued her late husband’s political course after the
death of Sheldon Adelson, a businessman and the founder of the casino
company Las Vegas Sands, by maintaining strong support for the U.S.
Republican Party. Over recent decades, the Adelson family has donated
hundreds of millions of dollars to election campaigns, becoming one
of the leading donors to the conservative wing of American politics.
It is precisely the scale of her influence and her close contacts
with the Trump administration that draw particular interest from
experts and observers.How Miriam and Sheldon
Adelson Influenced U.S. Decisions on IsraelA series of cases is widely
discussed in which funding from the Adelson family coincided with
major political decisions made by the White House. Among the most
prominent examples is the relocation of the U.S. embassy from Tel
Aviv to Jerusalem in 2018. According to reports by Reuters and The
New York Times, this move was actively lobbied by Adelson and her
circle, and the opening ceremony itself took place in the personal
presence of the philanthropists.In addition, Miriam Adelson
has repeatedly been honored for her philanthropy and support of
Israeli military organizations. In 2018, Trump awarded her the
Presidential Medal of Freedom, one of the highest state honors in the
United States. It is known that Adelson regularly visited the White
House and maintained personal contact with the president on key
issues.The term “major donor”
in this context refers to an individual or organization that
contributes substantial sums to the campaigns of politicians or
political parties. Lobbying is the activity of promoting the
interests of private entities through lawful mechanisms of influence
on those in power.What Donald Trump Said and
Why His Words Caused a StirDuring his speech, broadcast
on Israeli and American channels, Trump stated: “Every president
for decades said they would move the embassy to Jerusalem, but I got
it done. Right, Miriam? Look, here’s Miriam—stand up, Miriam.”Trump then spoke about how
the Adelson couple frequently visited his office and actively
participated in discussions on issues related to Israel. He added: “I
once asked Miriam: which do you love more—Israel or the United
States? She didn’t answer. Maybe it’s Israel.” These remarks
became the subject of heated debate: can a donor with such priorities
be considered capable of influencing U.S. foreign policy?The context of the speech
intensified the overall atmosphere—on the eve of the address, a
temporary ceasefire regime between Israel and Hamas had been agreed
upon, and Trump presented himself as a peacemaker. His jokes and
rhetorical questions energized the audience, but also generated new
suspicions regarding the transparency of the decisions being made.Reaction of Public
Organizations and ExpertsImmediately after Trump’s
speech, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a
statement condemning such close ties between politicians and private
donors. In a comment to Casino.org, CAIR representatives noted: “We
welcome Trump’s candor in openly acknowledging the level of
influence Miriam Adelson has on policy. We urge all U.S. politicians
to refuse support from donors who place the interests of a foreign
state above national ones.”CAIR’s primary mission is
to protect the interests of American Muslims and to combat
discrimination and double standards. The council actively responds to
any manifestations of interference in U.S. politics by foreign
lobbyists. According to experts, such statements reflect growing
public concern about the transparency of the political process.The Debate Over Donor
Influence and Possible ConsequencesPublic anxiety is increasing
over whose hands hold the levers of control over foreign policy. Some
experts argue that donations are a way of exercising civic engagement
and supporting chosen politicians. Others see this as a threat to
national interests and a risk of substituting public demand with
private interests.Where is the line between
lawful support for a candidate and manipulation of foreign policy?
What measures can prevent conflicts of interest between donors and
state institutions? There are still no clear answers to these
questions. Discussions of lobbying, donor ethics, and the influence
of capital are becoming increasingly intense amid global challenges.Similar mechanisms of
influence also exist in less large-scale but no less illustrative
forms, including in the gambling sector. In various countries,
politicians and government officials often receive financial support
from the gambling business, including casino owners and online
platform operators. In return, such industries expect favorable
regulation: license extensions, relaxed requirements, more lenient
tax legislation, or delays in restrictive measures. Formally, such
relationships fall within the bounds of the law, yet they
increasingly become the subject of public debate about conflicts of
interest and the transparency of decision-making.Against this backdrop, it is
hardly surprising that the gambling industry is developing not only
in offline formats but also in the digital sphere, where state
oversight is often weaker. Online casinos and live games attract
audiences through mobility and ease of access, while the projects
themselves quickly build up an ecosystem of apps and services. For
example, through FunkyTimeGame.org
Apps, users can download Funky Time applications and play in a
live show format directly from a smartphone, without being tied to
physical casinos or a specific location.In a broader context, this
once again brings the discussion back to the core issue: the
influence of capital—whether from major political donors or the
gambling industry—gradually permeates various spheres of public
life. That is why questions of transparency, regulation, and public
oversight are becoming increasingly relevant, regardless of whether
the issue concerns foreign policy, domestic legislation, or the
entertainment industry.Context and Explanations for
a Broad AudienceThe Knesset is Israel’s
parliament and the country’s highest legislative body. The
relocation of the American embassy to Jerusalem was perceived as a
historic victory for Israeli diplomacy; it signified the official
recognition of the city as the capital. For the United States, this
step became the subject of sharp criticism from other Middle Eastern
countries as well as allies in the European Union.World history has seen other
instances in which major donors, such as George Soros or the Koch
brothers, exerted notable influence on politics by financing
campaigns, think tanks, or media outlets. The Adelson case only
underscores that such practices have become universal, while
questions of transparency remain unresolved.Who determines strategic
foreign policy decisions—presidents, parliaments, or shadow donors
with their own preferences? Do parallels arise with other countries
where political elites are closely intertwined with big capital?
Behind the façade of philanthropy often lie complex mechanisms of
influence that require public oversight and reflection.
Features
Are Niche and Unconventional Relationships Monopolizing the Dating World?
The question assumes a battle being waged and lost. It assumes that something fringe has crept into the center and pushed everything else aside. But the dating world has never operated as a single system with uniform rules. People have always sorted themselves according to preference, circumstance, and opportunity. What has changed is the visibility of that sorting and the tools available to execute it.
Online dating generated $10.28 billion globally in 2024. By 2033, projections put that figure at $19.33 billion. A market of that size does not serve one type of person or one type of relationship. It serves demand, and demand has always been fragmented. The apps and platforms we see now simply make that fragmentation visible in ways that provoke commentary.
Relationship Preferences
Niche dating platforms now account for nearly 30 percent of the online dating market, and projections suggest they could hold 42 percent of market share by 2028. This growth reflects how people are sorting themselves into categories that fit their actual lives.
Some want a sugar relationship, others seek partners within specific religious or cultural groups, and still others look for connections based on hobbies or lifestyle choices. The old model of casting a wide net has given way to something more targeted.
A YouGov poll found 55 percent of Americans prefer complete monogamy, while 34 percent describe their ideal relationship as something other than monogamous. About 21 percent of unmarried Americans have tried consensual non-monogamy at some point. These numbers do not suggest a takeover. They suggest a population with varied preferences now has platforms that accommodate those preferences openly rather than forcing everyone into the same structure.
The Numbers Tell a Different Story
Polyamory and consensual non-monogamy receive substantial attention in media coverage and on social platforms. The actual practice rate sits between 4% and 5% of the American population. That figure has remained relatively stable even as public awareness has increased. Being aware of something and participating in it are separate behaviors.
A 2020 YouGov poll reported that 43% of millennials describe their ideal relationship as non-monogamous. Ideals and actions do not always align. People answer surveys about what sounds appealing in theory. They then make decisions based on their specific circumstances, available partners, and emotional capacity. The gap between stated preference and lived reality is substantial.
Where Young People Are Looking
Gen Z accounts for more than 50% of Hinge users. According to a 2025 survey by The Knot, over 50% of engaged couples met through dating apps. These platforms have become primary infrastructure for forming relationships. They are not replacing traditional dating; they are the context in which traditional dating now occurs.
Younger users encounter more relationship styles on these platforms because the platforms allow for it. Someone seeking a conventional monogamous partnership will still find that option readily available. The presence of other options does not eliminate this possibility. It adds to the menu.
Monopoly Implies Exclusion
The framing of the original question suggests that niche relationships might be crowding out mainstream ones. Monopoly means one entity controls a market to the exclusion of competitors. Nothing in the current data supports that characterization.
Mainstream dating apps serve millions of users seeking conventional relationships. These apps have added features to accommodate other preferences, but their core user base remains people looking for monogamous partnerships. The addition of new categories does not subtract from existing ones. Someone filtering for a specific religion or hobby does not prevent another person from using the same platform without those filters.
What Actually Changed
Two things happened. First, apps built segmentation into their business models because segmentation increases user satisfaction. People find what they want faster when they can specify their preferences. Second, social acceptance expanded for certain relationship types that previously operated in private or faced stigma.
Neither of these developments amounts to a monopoly. They amount to market differentiation and cultural acknowledgment. A person seeking a sugar arrangement and a person seeking marriage can both use apps built for their respective purposes. They are not competing for the same resources.
The Perception Problem
Media coverage tends toward novelty. A story about millions of people using apps to find conventional relationships does not generate engagement. A story about unconventional relationship types generates clicks, comments, and shares. This creates a perception gap between how often something is discussed and how often it actually occurs.
The 4% to 5% practicing polyamory receive disproportionate coverage relative to the 55% who prefer complete monogamy. The coverage is not wrong, but it creates an impression of prevalence that exceeds reality.
Where This Leaves Us
Niche relationships are not monopolizing dating. They are becoming more visible and more accommodated by platforms that benefit from serving specific needs. The majority of people seeking relationships still want conventional arrangements, and they still find them through the same channels.
The dating world is larger than it was before. It contains more explicit options. It allows people to state preferences that once required inference or luck. None of this constitutes a takeover. It constitutes an expansion. The space for one type of relationship did not shrink to make room for another. The total space grew.
Features
Matthew Lazar doing his part to help keep Israelis safe in a time of war
By MYRON LOVE It is well known – or at least it should be – that while Israel puts a high value of protecting the lives of its citizens, the Jewish state’s Islamic enemies celebrate death. The single most glaring difference between the opposing sides can be seen in the differing approach to building bomb shelters to protect their populations.
Whereas Hamas and Hezbollah have invested untold billions of dollars over the past 20 years in building underground tunnels to protect their fighters while leaving their “civilian” populations exposed to Israeli bombs, not only has Israel built a highly sophisticated anti-missile system but also the leadership has invested heavily in making sure that most Israelis have access to bomb shelters – wherever they are – in war time.
While Israel’s bomb shelter program is comprehensive, there are still gaps – gaps which Dr. Matthew Lazar is doing his bit to help reduce.
The Winnipeg born-and raised pediatrician -who is most likely best known to readers as a former mohel – is the president of Project Life Initiatives – the Canadian branch of Israel-based Operation Lifeshield whose mission is to provide bomb shelters for threatened Israeli communities.
Lazar actually got in on the ground floor – so to speak. It was a cousin of his, Rabbi Shmuel Bowman, Operation Lifeshield’s executive director, who – in 2006 – founded the organization.
“Shmuel was one of a small group of American olim and Israelis who were visiting the Galilee during the second Lebanon war in 2006 and found themselves under rocket attack – along with thousands of others – with no place to go,” recounts Lazar, who has two daughters living in Israel. “They decided to take action. I was one of the people Shmuel approached to become an Operation Lifeshield volunteer.
Since the founding of Lifeshield, Lazar reports, over 1,000 shelters have been deployed in Israel. The number of new shelter orders since October 7, 2023 is 149.
He further notes that while the largest share of Operation Lifeshield’s funding comes from American donors, there has been good support for the organization across Canada as well.
One of the major donors in Winnipeg is the Christian Zionist organization, Christian Friends of Israel (FOI) Canada which, in September, as part of its second annual “Stand With Israel Support” evening – presented Lazar and Operation Lifeshield with a cheque for $30,000 toward construction of a bomb shelter for the Yasmin kindergarten in the Binyamina Regional Council in Northern Israel.
Lazar reports that to date the total number of shelters donated by Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry (globally) is over 100.
Lazar notes that the head office for Project Life Initiatives is – not surprisingly – in Toronto. “We communicate by telephone, text and Zoom,” he says.
He observes that – as he is still a full time pediatrician – he isn’t able to visit Israel nearly as often as he would like to. He manages to go every couple of years and always makes a point of visiting some of Operation Lifeshield’s projects.
(He adds that his wife, Nola, gets to Israel two or three times a year – not only to visit family, but also in her role as president of Mercaz Canada – the Canadian Conservative movement’s Zionist arm.)
“This is something I have been able to do to help safeguard Israelis,” Lazar says of his work for Operation Lifeshield. “This is a wonderful thing we are doing. I am glad to be of help. ”
Features
Patterns of Erasure: Genocide in Nazi Europe and Canada
By LIRON FYNE When we think of the word genocide, our minds often jump to the Holocaust, the mass-scale, systemic government-led murder of six million Jews by Nazi Germany during the Second World War, whose unprecedented scale and methods led to the very term ‘genocide’ being coined. On January 27th, 2026, we will bow our heads for International Holocaust Remembrance Day, the 80th year of remembrance.
Less frequently do we connect genocidal intent to the campaign against Indigenous peoples in Canada; the forced displacement, cultural destruction, and systematic killing that sought to erase Indigenous peoples. The genocide conducted by the Nazis and the genocidal intent of the Canadian government, though each unique in scale, motive, and implementation, share many conceptual similarities. Both were driven by ideologies of racial superiority, executed through governmental precision, and justified by the perpetrators as a moral mission.
At their core rests the concept of dehumanization. In Nazi Germany, Jews were viewed as subhuman, contaminated, and a threat to the ‘Aryan’ race. In Canada, Indigenous peoples were represented as obstacles to ‘progress’ and seen as hurdles to a Christian, Eurocentric nation. These ideas, this dehumanization, turned human beings into problems to be solved. Adolf Hitler called it the ‘Jewish question,’ leading to an official policy in 1942 called the ‘Final Solution to the Jewish Question,’ whereas Canadian officials called it the ‘Indian problem.’ The language is similar, a belief that one group’s existence endangers the destiny of another. The methods of extermination differed in practice and outcome, but the language of intent resembles one another.
The Holocaust’s concentration camps and carefully engineered gas chambers were designed for efficient, industrial-scale killing, resulting in mass murder. The well-organized plan of systematic degradation, deadly riots, brutal camp conditions, and designated killing centres were only a few of the ways the Nazis worked to eliminate the Jews. The Canadian government’s weapons were policy, assimilation and abandonment. Such as the Indian Act, reserves, and residential schools, which were all meant to ‘kill the Indian in the child,’ cutting generations off from their languages, families, and cultures. Thousands of Indigenous children died in residential schools, buried in unmarked graves near schools that called themselves places of learning. Both systems were backed by either religion or ideology; Nazi ideology brought together racist eugenic policies and virulent antisemitism, while Canada’s genocidal intent was supported by Christian Protestantism claiming to save Indigenous souls by erasing their heritage.
The Holocaust was a six-year campaign of complete industrialized extermination, mass murder with a mechanized intent, on a scale that remains historically unique. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission describes Canada’s indigenous genocide as a cultural one that unfolded over centuries through assimilation and the destruction of indigenous languages and identities. The Holocaust ended with the liberation of the camps and a global recognition of the atrocities committed. However, the generational trauma and dehumanization of antisemitism carry on. For Indigenous peoples in Canada, the effects of the genocidal intent continue to this day, visible in displacement, poverty, and intergenerational trauma. While these histories differ in form and timeline, both are rooted in dehumanization and the belief that some lives are worth less than others.
A disturbing similarity lies in the aftermath: silence and denial. The Holocaust forced the world to confront the atrocity with the vow of ‘Never Again,’ which has now been unearthed and reformed as ‘Never Again is Now,’ after the October 7th, 2023, massacre by Hamas. The largest massacre of Jewish people since the Holocaust, and the denial of the atrocities committed on October 7th, highlight the same Holocaust denial we see rising around the world. In Canada, for decades, the genocidal intent was hidden behind narratives of kindness and social progress. Only in recent years, through survivor testimony for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the discovery of unmarked graves, has the truth gained recognition. But acknowledgment without justice risks repeating the same patterns of erasure.
Comparing these atrocities committed is not about comparing pain or scale; it is about understanding the shared systems that enabled them. Both demonstrate how racism, superiority, and dehumanization can be used to justify the destruction of human beings. Remembering is not enough in Canada. True remembrance demands accountability, land restitution, reparations, and education that confronts Canada’s ongoing colonial legacy. When we say ‘Never Again is Now’, we hold collective action to combat antisemitism in all forms. The same applies to Truth & Reconciliation; it must be more than a slogan; we must apply action to Truth & ReconciliACTION.
Liron Fyne is a 12th-grade student at Gray Academy of Jewish Education in Winnipeg. They are currently a Kenneth Leventhal High School Intern at StandWithUs Canada, a non-profit education organization that combats antisemitism.